- AGF should allow EFCC to conclude case against Sokoto officials; it’s wrong to pass it to the state’s attorney-general
LATE last year, we raised the alarm over the plan by the Attorney- General (AG) of Sokoto State, to take over from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) the prosecution of two serving state officials, Muhammed Abubakar, the commissioner for lands and housing, and Abubakar Ahmed, a deputy director, ministry of education, relying on a fiat given by a former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), late Michael Agbamuche. Now, the current AGF, Abubakar Malami, reportedly gave a fiat, which the court has upheld that the EFCC should hand over the prosecution, commenced since 2014 before Justice R. M. Aikawa of the Federal High Court, Sokoto, to the Sokoto State AG, Suleiman Usman.
While we advocate for federalism, we are worried whether the AGF and the state AG are acting in good faith, in this matter. We are concerned, whether the state AG, who is gunning to take over the prosecution that has been investigated and partly prosecuted by a federal agency is in a position to diligently prosecute the matter. Again, considering that the officials concerned are still serving the Sokoto State government despite the indictment, should the watching public not be entitled to question the genuine interest of the state government to hold them to account?
In our view, the desperation by the state AG to take over the prosecution of the matter, and the connivance of the AGF to actualise it, is very untidy. Untidy because, the two serving officials were charged with 43 counts, which border on money laundering, forgery and uttering, committed under the previous state regime. The question for the AGF is whether the charges brought by the EFCC fall outside the scope of the commission’s jurisdiction; and if they do not, why should the AGF prefer the state prosecutors, considering that the two officials are still in the state service?
Unless the AGF is determined to help the state AG to actualise whatever motive he has, we advise that the EFCC which had started the prosecution be allowed to complete it. If, per chance the advice is ignored, and the state AG goes ahead to do a wishy-washy prosecution, won’t it be fair to accuse the AGF and the state AG of connivance?
Or, is the interest of the AGF not merely a diligent prosecution of crime, wherever it is committed? Even for the state AG, what is the special interest in the charges against the state officials, if not partisan, considering that their common principal, the state government, has not felt offended enough, as they are still in service, despite facing the humongous allegations?
Assuming the AGF is acting fairly, would he be willing to also transfer cases against serving and former state officials to their respective state AGs, in the same spirit? If he won’t, when other states ask him to, then he opens himself to accusation of playing double standards. We hope he would not try to obfuscate the questions we have raised here, by referring to the policy of the Federal Government to grant state prosecutors warrant to prosecute some charges, to decongest the docket of the federal agencies. The difference here is that the officials concerned are still serving, and it is the state AG that is pushing to take over.
As passionate proponents of federalism, we urge the AGF to actually set an across-the- board general standards, to ensure legitimate constitutional dichotomy between federal and state offences and its prosecution by federal agencies. Such a standard will cure the insinuation of ulterior motive over the order to the EFCC to discontinue and hand over the prosecution of the two officials of the Sokoto State government to an official of the state.
